Edit
ray a
5,703 Posts
Why was the edit function changed to not allow any edits more than 30 minutes after the initial post?
ray a
5,703 Posts
Comments
I believe this began a couple of months ago, connected timing wise around Don D being chastised for remarks. I don't know if the timing was related to that or coincidental. Perhaps the Forum wants to be able to preserve some sort of document trail in the event a disciplinary action and it's consequences develop legs and begin to travel into other venues, such as litigation.
I know, I know...my cynical mind is alive and well and thinking of liability exposures where none probably exists.
In our view, the primary reason for the "edit your post" feature was to enable participants to catch their typos and maybe to include a little bit of additional information that they didn't think to include in the original post. We didn't intend for it to be used to delete a post entirely, or even to rewrite it entirely and leave it in its original place in the conversation. We think that has a lot of potential to create confusion, especially after someone else has responded to the post. So some time back, we imposed the 30-minute rule.
More recently, as participation on the Forum has gotten a little more frisky, we've had a greater number of occasions where someone has hit the alert button to notify the Forum monitors about questionable or offensive posts. Sometimes when that happens, we like to give the original poster the opportunity to revise the post to bring it within the guidelines. The 30-minute rule is too short to allow that to occur, so we've extended it. It's currently at 24 hours.
But we'd still prefer that you not use the feature to delete the contents of a post entirely, leaving only a blank message that says "last edited on..." If you want us to delete one of your own posts, let us know. We're usually happy to do so. If someone else has responded to the post, we may have to consider some other factors, such as whether the remaining messages will still make sense.
And as always, we'd prefer that you not say anything that you later feel the need to retract.
Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers
Just as aside, I do wish people would send private emails to the "offending" poster prior to hitting the alert button.
We're certainly fine with private communications in such situations, as you suggest. We're also fine with playing the "kindergarten cop" role.
Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers
Have I opened up a can worms?
My use of "sort of offensive" was merely meant to convey that offensiveness isn't black and white; it's a continuum. On one end of the spectrum, we've gotta whack it. On the other, we leave it in. If it's mostly on the whackable end, but there's some redeeming HR content mixed in with it, we'd rather see if it's salvageable.
Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers
As for censoring posts, I would propose that you do not censor controversial posts or statements that are GENERAL in nature and not directed towards a particular individual such as:
Men are dumb or Oregon is full of wackos.
I say, let the forum participants respond and illuminate the ignorance or offensiveness of such posts.
On the other hand, offensive statements directed at an INDIVIDUAL should be immediately deleted and the offending party should receive a warning.
Ex. Paul has stinky feet and doesn't know the difference between HR and Preparation H.
That kind of personal attack is unprofessional and out of place - even in a free flowing forum where heated exchange is encouraged. Personal attacks NEVER further debate. In fact they often sidetrack an otherwise interesting discussion.
Thanks for listening.
Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers